Is Scalia Undermining SCOTUS Through Dissents?

Supreme Court dissents have no legal standing, but serve many purposes, Melvin I. Urofsky argues in his book, “Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue.” Among them: to facilitate a future change in the law; to invite action from Congress; to provoke public scrutiny of the Court; or to limit the scope of a majority decision. In a review of Urofsky’s book in The Nation, lawyer Michael O’Donnell argues that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has twisted the practice of writing dissents into a divisive practice that undermines the authority of the Court. Citing Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Court legitimized gay marriage, O’Donnell says Scalia “writes for the headlines,” and is “not persuading anyone except the Fox News crowd.” His dissent in the case “gives the impression of a sore loser who likes the limelight,” O’Donnell claims. If “dissenters placed the Court above themselves, they would want its decisions to have legitimacy before the public. But these days, some justices would sooner light a fire.”